Israel Sobered By Syria Debacle

0519_World_-NetanyahuSyria_full_600Saturday marks Yom Kippur, the holiest day on the Jewish calendar and, this year, the 40th anniversary of the outbreak of the Yom Kippur War, the greatest trauma in Israeli history.

On the morning of October 6, 1973—the day on which Yom Kippur fell that year—Chief of Staff David Elazar met with Prime Minister Golda Meir and Defense Minister Moshe Dayan to warn that the Egyptian and Syrian armies were about to attack Israel. Elazar urged a preemptive strike; six years earlier, in the Six-Day War, Israel’s preemptive strike had proved highly effective.

But Meir and Dayan, who were under heavy pressure from U.S. secretary of state Henry Kissinger not to preempt, overruled the chief of staff. The result was near-catastrophic as later that day the Egyptian and Syrian armies attacked first and took battlefield advantages while inflicting heavy casualties.

Israel was able to turn the tide and, with the help of a massive U.S. airlift, prevail. But the price was almost 2700 casualties and a country shocked, depressed, and shaken to its roots.

It all comes back with added force as Israel faces a new year (on the Jewish calendar) with Iran closer than ever to crossing the nuclear threshold. The question—now as then—is how much to work in synch with the U.S. and how much—and at what point—to take matters in one’s own hands.

Israel Hayom reports:

Ever since U.S. President Barack Obama surprised the world by seeking congressional approval for a military strike on Syria, concerns have grown among Israeli government officials in Jerusalem about a decline of America’s status in the Middle East and the implications for Iran’s nuclear program. No Israeli spokesperson has made an official statement on the issue….

On Wednesday, though, addressing a graduation ceremony for navy cadets, both Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon made statements that have been taken as implicitly critical of Obama’s confused, dithering approach to the Syrian chemical-weapons issue.

Netanyahu, invoking a “rule” from the ancient Jewish sage Hillel, said:

It…must be ensured that the Syrian regime will be disarmed of its chemical weapons, and the world needs to make certain that those who use weapons of mass destruction will pay the price for it. The message that Syria receives will be clearly heard in Iran.

Today, the rule that has guided me in most of my actions as prime minister and to which I adhere very carefully is perhaps more valid than ever. If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If we are not for ourselves, who will be for us? And the practical translation of this rule is that Israel will always be able to defend itself by itself against any threat.

Yaalon said in a similar vein:

We don’t know how the Egyptian revolution will end or how Iran’s race toward nuclear weapons will be stopped. We don’t yet know how the free world will act in light of the massacres in Syria. We are monitoring events and developments responsibly and with sound judgment, with the understanding that ultimately we must rely on ourselves, on our strength and our deterrent capability.

Since at least the start of Netanyahu’s previous prime ministerial term in 2009, the Israeli top echelons have been bitterly riven by a debate over whether or not to trust Washington and the “international community” to handle the Iranian nuclear issue.

Reportedly, when Netanyahu and his then defense minister, Ehud Barak, ordered the defense establishment to prepare a plan to attack Iran, the defense establishment balked and, in effect, refused—and particularly the then Mossad chief, Shin Bet (domestic security) chief, and chief of staff.

After stepping down, former Mossad chief Meir Dagan and former Shin Bet chief Yuval Diskin went public (for instance, here and here, respectively) with ridicule for Netanyahu and Barak’s hawkishness on the Iranian issue amid assurances that Israel could rely on President Obama and the “international community.”

Although Dagan and Diskin are quiet these days, one wonders if they still feel so sure after Obama’s bungling of the Syrian issue, the British Parliament’s ringing slap to Prime Minister David Cameron, and the “international community’s” usual gullible quest for an easy “solution”—possibly Russian president Vladimir Putin’s patently unworkable idea for Syria to give up its chemical stockpiles.

Jerusalem needs to stay mindful of the Yom Kippur War precedent and of the fact that, after the last two weeks, the chances of the West posing a “credible threat” to Tehran are lower than ever.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • southwood

    Netanyahu is hysterical. The fool wants a WWII scenario just to satisfy his agenda.Attacking the Syrian government will massively boost the morale of Al Qaeeda type rebels in Syria. If they take over, Assad will seem like a dove, a dove the Israelis want shot down.

    • reader

      I don’t know where you get off at. First of all, WWII is over. The next number is III. Secondly, just because Bibi said that he is monitoring what’s going on in Syria and how the West handles it, does not mean that he’s prepared to attack Syria. It is kind of obvious that the main threat comes from Iran. Bibi has to track the triangle connecting Assad, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Iran and decide on the best option. What’s clear is that he cannot rely on Obama at all.

      • southwood

        OK WWIII ! My bad ! Anyway, the tone of the article left me feeling that “Bibi” would be disappointed that Obama is not going to attack Syria. As someone who is angry at the thought of the US attacking Syria, or the Brits, or the French, or anyone else, I would hope that Netanyahu would be against that type of action.

        • SCREW SOCIALISM

          And the Left is happy that Islamofascists can continue killing with abandon.

          It’s “Progressive” to tolerate poison gassing of children – when their guy is doing the gassing.

          • southwood

            Just who do you think is doing the gassing ? Assad or the rebels ?

        • EarlyBird

          He clearly is disappointed. His traitorous “American” agents in AIPAC and othe Israel Firsters were lobbying Congress overtime to attack Syria.

          • defcon 4

            Yet when Islam firsters suggest introducing blasphemy laws that would invalidate the US Constitution you don’t seem up in arms about the fact.

        • 11bravo

          I would hope that Netanyahu would be against that type of action.
          Why would you hope that? What would even make you think that?

          • southwood

            Are you serious ? You want WWIII ?

      • Cold_Drake_80

        Not true. Obama wanted war – which is typical of US presidents in recent decades – the problem was one of internal politics. Even the bloody minded republican party just couldn’t break from their obstructionist path long enough to rubber stamp the proposed attack. Domestic opposition? Bah, Bush didn’t care about that and neither did his bitchboys in congress. The root of republican opposition is hatred of democrats in general and Obama in particular. They have created a litmus test of sorts that if Obama wants it then it’s bad. Even if it something (war) they would green light under virtually any other circumstances.

        • reader

          With all due respect, it’s incoherent and idiotic, as expected. Occam Razor. Obama is a consistent supporter of Muslim Brotherhood – be it in Egypt, Libya or Syria. Assad was his friend once – until he started to pummel muslim brothers.

        • SCREW SOCIALISM

          Cold_Dork_80,

          What a load of rubbish.

          The Islamofascists know that their bitchboys of the Left will do anything to advance Islamofascism. Defending Islamofascism is fashionable amongst “progressive” idiots.

          But I am happy to see Obama getting raked over the coals by the fascist Left, just as they did to GWB.
          Meanwhile the FAKE “anti-war” movement is only for defending the Assad family dictatorship

          and NOT defending the women and children gassed by Islamofascist savages.

          So much for the “Peace Movement”.

          • EarlyBird

            Yeah! First it was Commies in Congress, and now its’ Jihadists! I’ve noticed too how suddenly congressmen are growing a lot more facial hair than before. JIHADISTS!

          • Cold_Drake_80

            These FPMers have no idea what they are talking about. They have hidden themselves away in a little bubble and screamed at each other for so long they have become delusional. I would say leave them to rot but they have the nasty habit of inflicting harm on others.

          • EarlyBird

            Yep. Self reinforcing mania.

          • Cold_Drake_80

            Mania? Hrm that is possible though I think the root of it is an inferiority complex. The FPMer mind is one wracked with terror. They live in a world their limited intellect and dead non-existent inner life can not handle. So something like humanity inside them rots away. What we are left with is the spite, hatred and rage. Their masters spot them easily and can manipulate them even more easily. Intellectually they are something with only a brain stem. No higher thought can occur beyond what their masters tell them to repeat.
            So I come here to afflict them with the one thing they can least tolerate. Doubt. Like all bigots they have rock solid certainty. So actual humans need to take that away from them. What happens after that is of no consequence beyond we will be rid of them at least as a political force.

          • EarlyBird

            Yes, at their core is absolute terror at a complicated world they can not understand, xenophobia, a sense of being victimized, and mostly white hot, incoherent anger. It’s the perfect vehicle for Limbaugh and Palin and other demagogues. They are hate-filled, poisonous bags of rage.

          • Drakken

            You forgot to mention racist, your slipping boy.

          • defcon 4

            Gee the islam0nazi ethnic cleansing of hundreds of thousands of Christians and Jews from the Mid-East and N. Africa hasn’t caused any harm has it? Nah, because it’s those who criticise islam that constitute the real “harm” isn’t it Ahmed?

          • Cold_Drake_80

            You’re clearly functionally (barely) retarded. After all you’ve not responded to what was posted in anything like a coherent manner. Well, I suppose you could be a defective bot program. I suspect FPM doesn’t really pay much for its bots so that would explain the incoherency.

          • defcon 4

            Please continue ranting and raving about the harm FPM is causing to the world, and please point out just exactly what that harm constitutes Ahmed.

          • Drakken

            Say! Isn’t that the shortbus outside to pick you up from your special school? Make sure you lick a window for me will you, because we all know how special you really are.

          • Cold_Drake_80

            Well, that was incoherent. Being a good FPMer has turned your brain to mush. That whole left = fascist gibberish you’ve been spoon fed for over a decade seems to have penetrated the thick layer of puss inside your skull. Who cares if it isn’t even remotely true.
            The institutional opposition is coming from the repubes which even you should realize. The anti-war movement is doing what it always has done. Namely opposing wars cheered for by the governing powers. Look I understand that you don’t care about truth but when you yammer on like this you make yourself look even stupider. Please, just stop if not for yourself than for the people who have to put up with you.

          • reader

            Yeah, one thing is sure. All your commie spittle does not work here, where people have IQ well beyond a floor trim, unlike where you come from. The so-called anti-war movement is standing on its head to cover up and distract attention from the gun-running operation in Libya conducted under the watch of their messiah and gone astray – as always. So much for anti-war.

          • Cold_Drake_80

            You have all the brains of a gang-banger. That is the root of your opposition. Your thought makers tell you it’s bad so you believe it’s bad. Doesn’t matter what it is.

          • reader

            You’re taught well to project, because you’re not capable of an honest debate. Just not enough brain power. I’m just explaining it to you, so, at least you know why you say what you say. But, back to the subject: even CNN reported about the gun running operation at the core of Benghazi scandal. You seem to be trying to ignore this, and, yet, it’s out there. Where’s the anti-war protests against what Obama was doing there in Libya?

          • Cold_Drake_80

            Their was opposition to the Libya attack. Just like Clinton’s attack on Serbia. These were short term wars with very limited US loses. This didn’t allow for much of a movement to build outside the really dedicated anti-war activists. You know the same people you ignore. Bush the lesser was an idiot who dragged us into long wars that allowed for a movement to actually build up.
            Democracy Now reported the Benghazi station was a CIA front so you are wwwwaaaaayyyy behind on that one. No surprise there. Of course none of this will mean anything to you but facts do count in reality and you should join us some time.

          • reader

            Oh, Libya was “unbelievable small’ – that’s what it is. Why don’t you join people demanding the real investigation on what occurred in Benghazi, specifically what exactly the so-called Commander-In Chief was doing all along? This is your chance to shrug off the unbelievably huge hypocrisy of the so-called anti-war. Personally, the “progressives” as anti-war as enviromental as progressive. They’re simply marxist, as is Obama. And marxism already caused unmeasurable amount of violence, misery, destruction and death. Own up to it.

          • Cold_Drake_80

            Who said anything about the attack on Libya being “small” I said it was of short duration. Size and time are different things you know. I also sited the US attack on Serbia but you’ve chosen to ignore that so you can change the subject and start shrieking and screaming about Benghazi.
            Now, anyone who isn’t a good FPMer can see you don’t really care about the loss of life in Benghazi. Your masters told you it was a political point and you’ve been hammering away ever since. I think they are letting it go just to see if you’re stupid enough to keep at it forever. I could have told them you are but they aren’t much smarter than you I suspect.
            The hypocrisy you yammer about is rooted in your inability to tell the difference between anti-war activists and Democratic party supporters. Then again you can’t tell them from Communists/fascists/religious fundamentalists/atheists or whatever other conspiracy you’re fixated on at this moment.

          • reader

            Now you’re deflecting. Simple question: would you support the investigation of whether or not Obama was running guns into Libya via Benghazi and whether or not he was monitoring the assault on the compound ending in the US Ambassador’s murder? Simple enough.
            And another one, while we’re at it: are you a marxist, or progressive? It is essentially the same thing, and, if you don’t understand why, I will explain. I read more marxist drivel than any of you will ever hope to. Try me.

          • Cold_Drake_80

            You don’t control this. You don’t get to decide who is and isn’t anti-war as you’ve clearly shown yourself too be to stupid or too dishonest to tell the difference.
            Was an investigation warranted? Sure, that’s why one was conducted. You don’t like it because it didn’t give you what you wanted. That most likely being a public hanging of the president conducted by a mob of mouth breathers like yourself.
            As for my political beliefs shove it. You’ve already stated the two choices you’ve presented as my sole options are the same. Which means you are an idiot and one who only wants to “debate” an issue you’ve already decided for yourself.
            You poses an enfeebled mind riddled with the lies your masters have told you. Now your self induced psychosis has taken over your life. So live in your violent, hateful fantasy world and rot.

          • reader

            Oh, an angry little marxist did like the question whether he was a marxist. Why not? Shouldn’t you show your beliefs off as a badge of honor if they’re worth anything? And another thing: funny that a marxist blames an opponent of violence. Only islam comes distant close to marxism in this department.

          • Cold_Drake_80

            So are you a white supremacist or a fascist? Well, mouth breather which is it so we can have our “debate”?

          • reader

            No, I’m not. The overwhelming majority of anti-commies are neither fascists, nor white supremacists. In fact, fascism stands for an Italian brand of socialism. This knee-jerk reply may work for an innocent 5-year old, until a child sees through the fallacy, should he or she aren’t retarded. Obviously, you’ve fallen behind, where no child is supposed to be.

          • Cold_Drake_80

            Wow, you really are an idiot. You completely failed to comprehend my point that you presented a false option and admitted your motives were dishonest.

            Fascism DOES NOT EQUAL Socialism. This is an obvious point but the good FPMer brain rot and destroyed your mind. I don’t care about your fate – you made your decision long ago – my goal is to prevent you from spewing all over the rest of the human race.
            This has worked well so far. You are driven by your reptile brain and very easily distracted. However, my work is done for now. You are free to go. Remember though when you start spewing hatred and the lust for violence I’ll be there to humiliate you again.
            Have a nice day.

          • reader

            I’m looking for substance here, and yet, apart from an obvious falsehood, i.e., fascism does not equal socialism, I only see school ground level insults. I’ve repeatedly read Mussolini’s program and that of NSDAP, and both are definitely and blatantly hostile to free-market capitalist system. In other words, they are socialist, or, even more broadly, statist at the core.

          • Drakken

            I can see a long drop at the end of a short rope in your future commi. That is all that traitors like you deserve.

          • Drakken

            Whoaaaa wait a second there progressive/commi, you forgot to call us racist, your slipping in your libtard talking points.

          • Cold_Drake_80

            White supremacists are racist you moron.

          • Cold_Drake_80

            Well, judging by your silence I’ll take you are to stupid to have noticed white supremacists are racist. Congratulations idiot.

          • Drakken

            The mental gymnastics that you are going through are absolutely mind boggling, and you call us stupid? Grow up kid and see the world for what it is, instead of screaming kumbaya and putting a COEXIST sticker on your Prius in the hope and change way of your hero Comrade Obummer.

          • 1Indioviejo1

            Leftist showed their hand under Stalin, Mao, Kim, and Castro. This is who you are. Look at what power has brought with the Obama regime. The IRS persecuting TEA Party members, the NSA spying on all Americans, the US Justice Department clamping in jail an innocent video producer to cover a State Department Crime. In other words an incipient Fascistic power overreach by the government. And I forgot to mention the street mobs of the occupy movement to intimidate average Americans. You should go preach to your choir, troll.

          • Cold_Drake_80

            So in your “mind” I’m Stalin? You sir have delusions of grandeur and persecution if you think your self appointed enemies have so much power.
            That Tea Party “persecution” was applied to non-tea party, left of center groups as well. I find it very interesting that you consider the denial of favorable tax status as persecution while equated the whole thing to Stalinism or North Korea. Have so a outsized view of perceived actions against your gang both show your bias and emotional retardation.
            You also have no idea what “anti-war” actually means if you can’t tell them from the NSA but that comes as no surprise in light of your other posts.

          • 11bravo

            Don’t forget the absolute barbarism perpetuated against women and gays. Maybe it’s that the right women and gays aren’t getting killed.
            Let’s go with Susan Sarandon, Tim Robins, Ellen DeGeneres and Elton John. Do you suppose if they were stoned to death and or hanging from a crane by their necks you pinko’s might change your minds about ISLAM?
            When it comes to JOOOOOZ and muslim women and children you socialists just can’t get that worked up AYE?

          • Cold_Drake_80

            That’s idiotic. Look at someone like Bill Maher not what I would call a full on leftist but way to the left of fascistic right-wing. He has nothing but scorn for Islam but because he targets your petty little pagan war god I’m sure you hate him like poison.

          • 11bravo

            Bill Maher is your token islamophobe? That is all you got?
            It reminds me of the moderate Muslims. With 1.6 BILLION!! to choose from you would think we could get at least 1/100,000th of them to speak out against the radicals.
            Alas, we have the token dozen who are allowed to speak harshly of the radicals with out losing their heads.

          • Cold_Drake_80

            That was an example you idiot. Also he’s not an islamophobe. he is an atheist and critic of many practices found in Islam among other religions. Your the bigot projecting such levels of hatred on others to reinforce your bias.
            I could have just as easily sited Christopher Hitchens or any of the other vocal atheists. You really are feeble minded.

          • 11bravo

            Was it something I said?
            My my, I must have touched a nerve projecting all that hatred.

          • Cold_Drake_80

            I accept your admission of defeat. You have my permission to stop posting. This was a big step for you as it takes at least a little bit of strength to admit you’re wrong.
            Some day you may be human again. We can always hope.

          • defcon 4

            The token few who speak out against the “radicals” don’t do so from any islamic state, which says a lot about islam doesn’t it?

        • EarlyBird

          You said it, Cold Drake! Especially the right wing zealots on this board.

          • defcon 4

            Yeah, it’s the right wing zealots we all have to fear, not the islam0nazis who are currently slaughtering/persecuting/raping anyone non-muslim in Syria, N. Africa, Nigeria, Pakistain, Bangladesh etc.

          • Cold_Drake_80

            Your choice of “fear” is very telling. Like any good FPMer you are obviously driven by fear. The fear their is someone, somewhere who doesn’t hold your beliefs turns your bowels to water. As a good FPMer you don’t care about people being killed. FPMers love to see blood and dead bodies so long as those people are brown enough or don’t worship the FPM pagan war god. So don’t try to pretend your motivated by a sense of humanity. You are a fear driven coward and a hypocrite.

          • Drakken

            War in the end is always the deciding factor boy, but hey, why don’t you go there and tell those misunderstood jihadist how mean, bigoted and racist us right of center are and I”ll get out the bourbon and cigar and watch as you get the Rachel(st pancake) Corrie treatment and a well deserved Darwin Award, I’ll even be nice and put you up for a honorable mention just in case. Come on peace now fan! Put your money where your big mouth is and prove to the rest of us mean naughty conservatives how wrong we really are. Come on Poindexter, I know you can do it!

          • Cold_Drake_80

            So how much fighting have you done?

          • Cold_Drake_80

            These “people” are either bots designed to post bigoted comments and increase page counts or rutting animals. I wouldn’t even esteem them by calling them zealots as those would be motivated by strong belief. These things are motivated by hatred and the love of violence.
            Call them for what they are. Orcs.

          • defcon 4

            LOL, then move to an islam0nazi state and be w/the Uruk Hai you seem to admire. Maybe you can join in on a tolerant, rousing chorus of: “Khaybar Khaybar ya yahud, Jaish Muhammad saya’ud”

          • EarlyBird

            Yeah! ‘Murca! Luv it er leeve it! Ugh!

          • EarlyBird

            I sometimes wonder if they are doing a send up of the terrified, John Bircher reactionary, circa 1950. They are absolutley hysterical.

          • Drakken

            Say! How is that COEXIST sticker on your Prius working out for you?

        • 1Indioviejo1

          How can you call Republicans bloody minded, when WW II was FDR’s show, Korea was all Trumans’, Vietnam JFK and LBJ, and so on. Your opinion is stupid and ignorant. Today, the TEA party Republicans are mostly isolationist. Sen. Paul, Sen. Cruz, and all the others are more interested in fixing the economy and getting the nation back to obeying the Constitution, so why do you expose your ignorance that way, have you no shame?

          • Cold_Drake_80

            At best the republicans will oppose a war if it fits their self serving agenda. Read a democratic president is in office. It was repubs who wanted to nuke China, Vietnam, et al in order to “win” various wars. You are mentally deficient to site WWII as we were actually attacked.
            Tea partiers are some of the same goons who lusted for war with Iraq and looked back on the 9/11 attacks with national pride. They started whining about the war – if at all – because bush messed it up or wasn’t brutal enough.

          • EarlyBird

            So how do you explain all the war-mongering nutjobs on this board, indio, yourself included?

      • Solo712

        Bibi is smart enough to read the writing on the wall. The US is not going to attack Iran by some idiotic playing-at-war with Assad. I was kind of disappointed that he dismissed out of hand Rouhani’s ‘Twitter overture’ (wishing Jews ‘rosh hashanah’). Even if it was fake, he could have tweeted back ‘Thanks. You guys wanna to talk to us ?’ just to see what that would do. Cannot hurt, can it ?

        • defcon 4

          Talking w/islam0nazi states hasn’t stopped islamic terrorism in Israel and India for SIXTY YEARS.

        • 11bravo

          Twitter? Are these leaders of nations or 13 year old school girl’s?

        • IkidYouNot

          Seriously? So you suggest Netanyahu to give a chance to the possibility that Rouhani changed his mind from one week earlier when he once again called for the destruction of Israel?

          Thanks. But no thanks. Netanyahu is as “trigger unhappy” as an Israeli leader can be, and with all due respect Iran has been making a complete fool of the western community regarding their nuclear development program.

          • Solo712

            Seriously,…how closely are you following the political developments in Iran ? Not very closely, are you ? Fess up ! Because, if you are you would know that the new Foreign Minister Javad Zarif said a week ago that “the man who denied there was a Holocaust is now gone !” AP reported a couple of days ago that Iran reduced its reserve of 20% enriched uranium to 140 kg, converting much of the delta (it was 185 kg in August) to fuel rods. Now, obviously it looks like something’s going on ! If you are not stupid and think you have it all figured out, you would want to find whether it’s just smoke an mirrors or if the Iranians (outside the Guards) want to try something smarter than Ahmanidejad’s yapidy-yap that got them nowhere.

      • EarlyBird

        Bibi doesn’t want to attack Syria, but he was sure looking forward to, and lobbying for, an American attack on Syria, even knowing that it would be bad for Israel’s closest “ally.” Nor would an American attack on Iran be a good thing or America.

        During a Syria strike Hezbollah would launch rockets at Israel, and the IDF would devastate Hezbollah once again. They’d also have the rightful reason to go into Syria proper and bomb the hell out of Assad’s assets.

        Too bad for Bibi the American people are finally fed up with war.

  • Grantman

    Israel will not attack Syria unless it’s attacked first. The last thing Bibi wants is WWII. What Bibi wants is that the US and The West return to their former glory and remove the nuclear threat. This removal does not have to be by military action but it must be coordinated by multiple state actors with clarity, purpose, and fortitude.

    • EarlyBird

      Grant,

      The height of US power was during the height of the Cold War, where we were the beacon and protector of freedom and prosperity. With our victory in the Cold War the world has become richer, safer and freer, multi-polar, nations have more options and are less reliant upon US protection. Hence, the US has become less powerful. That’s just how history works.

      Talk about “glory” and pushing countries like Iran around is an attempt return to the past and freeze America in amber circa 1952. It’s dangerous. It’s the very thing that drives Iran to obtain those nukes in the first place. It’s what Bush’s neocon nonsense was about, an attempt to make our anachronistic Cold War hard power relevant in a post-Cold War world.

      The world in general may not prefer a nuclear-armed Iran, but they are not terrified of one, and not ready to precipitate WWIII to prevent it. Only Israel is.

      The only question is whether or not Israel will be able to get the United States to commit suicide to help keep Iran nuke-free, and Israel the regional hegemon. It seems the American people are ready to put that 20th Century America behind them.

      • therealpm

        Do you really think the world is safer and freer now than it was during the Cold War? While there can be no doubt that there is now a great deal more freedom in the former Soviet block, there has also been a severe curtailment of freedom throughout the West. There are now regular witch hunts against anyone who has the temerity to oppose the approved line in many Western countries, something which would have been unthinkable just twenty years ago. Many people are now very reluctant to speak their minds in the supposed home of free speech for fear it may cost them their livelihood.
        The world is also a great deal less safe than it used to be during the Cold War. While the Soviets may have had thousands of nuclear warheads pointed at us they were never likely to use them. Their leaders may have been brutal thugs, but they were never irrational and maintaining power was always their primary goal. An all out war with the West would have utterly destroyed that power base, even if they survived it.
        Today by contrast we have completely irrational religious maniacs acquiring WMD. Death means nothing to these lunatics; indeed many would welcome it if they could kill thousands of infidels at the same time. So the deterrence which was so effective against the Soviets might actually serve to encourage those posing today’s threats. The only safe way of dealing with a jihadist with a nuclear weapon is to stop them from getting it in the first place, whatever that may entail.

        • defcon 4

          OBL stated that he wished 300,000 Americans had been killed on 9-11. Is anyone stupid enough to believe the various islam0nazi terrorist outfits wouldn’t be willing to use WMD against Israel or the USA?

        • EarlyBird

          “Do you really think the world is safer and freer now than it was during the Cold War?”

          Are you kidding? Do I think the world is safer, freer and more peaceful than when the Soviets were mauling Europe, the communists were putting people in death camps in China, Vietnam and Cambodia, there were death squads running Central America, and we had nukes pointed at each other? Now that there are far fewer wars and other conflicts (objectively this is true, though the news doesn’t look that way), and markets and therefore people are SO much more free? Yes.

          “….there has also been a severe curtailment of freedom throughout the West. There are now regular witch hunts …”

          Oh come on. Political Correctness hardly makes a totalitarian state.

          “The world is also a great deal less safe than it used to be during the Cold War. While the Soviets may have had thousands of nuclear warheads pointed at us they were never likely to use them.”

          There were at least three times when the US and USSR were very close to trading shots with ICBMs.

          “Their leaders may have been brutal thugs, but they were never irrational and maintaining power was always their primary goal.”

          You just described the mullahs of Iran, Assad, the former Hussein – even Al Queda. You’ll notice that even these animals, though they employ their version of kamikazes, want to control land and populations, not merely blow up the world or the United States. They are indeed rational.

          Nonetheless, I’m with you on this:
          “The only safe way of dealing with a jihadist with a nuclear weapon is to stop them from getting it in the first place, whatever that may entail.”

          But let’s not precipitate WWIII in the process of trying to prevent WWIII, i.e., by smashing, invading, occupying and attempting to “transform” places like Iran. Let us recognize why the Iranians WANTS nukes in the first place: because they are terrified of us. And remember that Reagan won the Cold War by keeping it from becoming WWIII. He showed strength AND let the Sovies know that we didn’t want to destroy them. Reagan’s handling of the Soviets was at least as much more peace-making than it was saber rattling. We seem to forget that.

          • Drakken

            Giving the muslim bearded savages in Tehran nukes is like giving a loaded AK to a chimp, it will end in a very bad way despite your wishful thinking that you can be reasonable with unreasonable savages.

      • 1Indioviejo1

        Bush’s neocon nonsense as you say was putting boots on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, and deludingly thinking he was going to bring democracy-whatever it means-to tribal animals. He needed to devastate the enemy and leave no stone unturned as often as needed. Hard power is never anachronistic. When you come with a rock we should meet you with .50 Caliber MG.

        • EarlyBird

          The point of winning a war is not just to triumph on the battlefield, but to create outcomes we want. We “won” every battle in Vietnam, but couldn’t turn the North democratic and pro-West.

          What do you believe our goals should be in the Middle East, and how would obliterating whole countries and governments get us there? I suspect we’d have far worse outcomes, with a whole swath of the world becoming a “failed state” and the Islamists would rush in to fill that void. We’d give them their new Caliphate on a silver plate.

          • Drakken

            When they run out of bodies to wage jihad, we have won.

          • 1Indioviejo1

            I don’t think so. Since you mentioned Vietnam, I will only say that our strategic goals were wrong, and just as in Korea, we fought only to contain the Communist and not to win. That’s why we have a Communist nuclear North Korea, and a Communist Vietnam. In the end we have to recognize that same 5th columnist America haters who aided our defeats in those wars are the same people apologizing for the Muslim savages today, but the situation is very different. The Muslims are here, and the world is intimidated and terrorized. We are loosing our liberty. Cartoons, comedians, movies, MSM, everyone is scared and we have lost our freedom of speech. So how will we win back our freedom? I don’t believe in winning hearts and minds but in doing to others what they would like to do to us, except do it first and often.

      • 11bravo

        ” It’s dangerous. It’s the very thing that drives Iran to obtain those nukes in the first place.”
        Gee, I thought ISLAM!! had something to do with what “drives” the Iranian/Islamic hatred.

        • EarlyBird

          “Gee, I thought ISLAM!! had something to do with what “drives” the Iranian/Islamic hatred.”
          Duh….Cuz they “hate us fer our freedom! Cuz they’re zombies who read the Koran and they start killin’ infidels cuz of our freedom and the only way to stop ‘em is to remove their heads.”
          You thought wrong.
          It’s a reaction to 100+ years of Western dominance of the governments, societies and economies of Muslim Middle East, and our hyper-aggressive posture towards those countries that threatens them constantly. It is wars and coups we have orchestrated for this time, and complete dominance in their lives.
          - COUPLED WITH “Islam,” Islam being the only organizing force left, now that we obliterated any kind of natural political life in those nations. Yes, they actually had political ideologies rather than purely radical religious ones.
          Look at America’s history in regard to our actions in Iran in ’52 as just one example of why they may hate us for something other than “Islam.” Try to figure out how a once very pro-Western nation so rabidly turned against us. Hint: if a superpower orchestrated a coup which ended up with Ike and his cabinet in prison or killed, and a brutal tyrant who tortured and executed countless thousands of Americans brave enough to speak out against that tyrant for a few decades, we may hate that superpower, Christian nation or not. What we did to Iran was a travesty.

          • defcon 4

            Sarcastically speaking, Iran is so much better off being an Islamic “Republic”. Strangely enough though Mehmet, Iran’s Zorastrians, Jews and Bahai don’t seem to agree w/you, because they’ve fled en mass.

          • Drakken

            What we did in 52 was keep Iran out of the Soviet orbit, so bleat on about jacksh** you know absolutely nothing about. The Shah kept the islamaniacs beneath his boot and gave Iran the 20th century and all that the western world offered, the ayatollah brought them back to the dark ages.

          • EarlyBird

            Bulls**t. We kept the British in control of Iranian oil. Period. Mossadeqh was outspokenly anti-Soviet, and was asking for much closer economic and military ties with Washington at the time of the coup. Ike felt bullied into the coup by the Brits, and they finally fooled him into thinking he was doing something to keep Iran out of the Soviet orbit.

            It was this simple: the Brits (Anglo-Persian Oil Co, forerunner to today’s BP) had long-running contracts to produce oil in Iran, and those contracts were coming to an end. A major issue in the Iranian elections was whether to extend those contracts or nationalize Iranian oil (“nationalize” in the sense that most every other nation’s oil is “nationalized”).

            Mossadeqh ran on the position to nationalize, and he won on that platform, fairly and squarely. We ousted him and his cabinet and installed the Shah and kept his torture chambers running for 30 years.

            We could have created a stalwart ally in the Middle East. Instead we wrecked that country. But they hate us fer our freedom! Cuz their Mooslums!

          • Drakken

            Awwww wrong shortbus ! Mossadeqh was going to put Iran in the Soviet sphere and nationalize the oil industry, he was a committed communist, thanks for playing sparky. We kept Iran solidly in the western camp and it was great for us that BP and Standard oil got us nice cheap oil. I think I hear your special school calling you.

          • EarlyBird

            Oh, sorry to burst your bubble. You mean, the USA isn’t perfect?!

          • Laura

            Yes they really do hate us because they are muslims and we are infidels. It really is that simple. The Iranian rulers are Islamic supremacist fanatics. Perhaps you need a crash course in Islamic ideology and history.

          • EarlyBird

            Grow up, Laura. You’re a woman now.

          • 11bravo

            We have obliterated nothing dude, your analogy falls flat since Islam has been around like 7-8 centuries before the US. Try again, the imperialism argument is so passé
            We are talking savages that are “cool” with that.
            I hate Islam and LOVE! America!’

          • EarlyBird

            Yeah, they’re zombies who hate us our freedom and nothing can stop them but removal of their heads. Actually considering American policy failures as well as successes makes us…anti-Murcan commienists! Duuuh.

      • defcon 4

        Better the 20th century than an 8th century Islamic “Republic”

      • Grantman

        EB, glory is not just military might. And I was not just speaking of the US but The West. Glory was the fact that we *were* a beacon and could, by strong leadership, affect other state actors with moral suasion. It is not pushing countries around.

        Israel does NOT want to precipitate WWIII (we’re actually already in WWIV by the way) it just wants to live in peace and prosperity but its neighbors simply won’t let it.

        Once Iran gets its nukes, there will be a mad rush by others in the region to get theirs and then the stability (or lack thereof) will be magnitudes less than it is today and The World may (will?) learn a terrible lesson that Chamberlain, Obama, and the rest of the feckless bureaucrats in foreign ministries have failed to learn though it is in chapter one of any foreign policy textbooks, appeasement never works.

        • EarlyBird

          Grant, we’re on the same page, but I wonder what you’d be willing to do to stop that? I suspect that by virtue of calling Obama Chamberlain, you’ve expressed the desire to go to all out war on Iran? Thereby precipitating WWIII by trying to prevent it?
          It’s just amazing to me that on this board the only possible response to Iran must be immediate war NOW on Iran. Anything less like the crippling sanctions which Obama has put together against Iran is “appeasment.”
          Remember, Reagan won the Cold War by not firing a shot. He spent more time offering olive branches than bullets. The mullahs are not insane. They want to survive, just like the Soviets did.

          • Drakken

            To compare the mullahs to the old Soviets is laughable and really shows that your understanding of the problem is more about your feelings and backed up with zero facts. With you being a air farce gal you show know that we could put Iran back in the dark ages if we wanted too without a boots on the ground presence.

          • EarlyBird

            Oh that’s right, cuz the 5th Imam and they’re all insane and Satanic. Gotcha. You forgot to mention Hitler too, you ape.

          • Drakken

            Yup, thanks for proving my point sunshine.

      • Drakken

        Yeah letting the Irainians have a nuke is a really great idea because you think in your little muddled mind that MAD works with these savages, it doesn’t, the bearded savages believe that a guy who lives in a well will come out to play if they use one.

    • 11bravo

      Must be? Nonsense. America or Israel are perfectly capable of making the decision to go in.
      Leaving the decision to any other actors means no decision EVER! Because it may help JOOOOOOZ!!

  • Solo712

    I don’t think that Israel is doing that badly, compared to three months ago. Hamas in Gaza has now, after the Egyptian army takeover, two fronts to defend instead of enjoying the MB sponsorship. Syria signing the chemical ban treaty is a very positive development, whose implementation will significantly bolster Israel’s security. If things turn around in Iran politically, which they may, the region may yet blunder its way to peace.

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      Cockyeyed optimist.

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        Sorry!

        Cockeyed.

    • Drakken

      The one thing you can always depend upon no matter what, is that the muslims will attack when they feel that Israel is weak, and I’ll bet you a cool grand that they will if given any opportunity to do so.
      When they do attack, I do hope Israel quits screwing around with the savages of the west bank and Gaza and gives them what they so richly deserve, Carthage!

    • EarlyBird

      You are correct, Solo. Let’s just make sure the right wing paranoiacs don’t screw it up.

      • defcon 4

        Let’s all just let the islamic world continue their slaughter/enslavement/persecution/ethnic cleansing of anyone non-muslim.

    • 1Indioviejo1

      I bet Syria will not sign any treaty and things will deteriorate. I hated Bush approach and intervention, and I don’t subscribe to the Powell theory that if we brake it we own it. It only works with “smater” enemies such as Germany, and Japan, but never against tribal animals. IMO we need to brake them into infinitesimal pieces.

      • EarlyBird

        Indio, the problem is that when you annihilate governments and infrastructures inside Muslim nations, there becomes a vacuum which is filled by the most violent and deranged Muslim enemies of the West. So if those governments and infrastructures are going to fall, let them fall by their own hands, not ours.

        Much better to recognize that the real battle going on right now is a civil war within Islam, and that the less we get entangled in it the safer we are as our enemies bleed themselves dry and fixate on each other.

    • defcon 4

      Yes and maybe the 12th imam will make an appearance.

    • 11bravo

      Diluted thinking. This agreement is with Commies – it will never happen.

  • EarlyBird

    “…shocked, depressed and shaken to its roots” describes a post-Iraq War Americans as much as Yom Kippur War Israelis.

    Like the Vietnam Syndrome, America is living through the Iraq War Syndrome, which accounts for the overwhelming rejection of a strike on Syria by broad majorities of Americans. It was not just the necons’ epic Iraq disaster itself, but the way they cooked up intelligence to get us into it. If we had not suffered through that nightmare we could have been easily duped into Obama’s Syria quagmire, with the old saws of “Assad is Hitler,” “America must lead,” and “American exceptionalism.” No more. America is not buying that garbage and are ready to drop the global cop routine.

    So Netanyahu is now shocked and bothered that Americans are less likely to be reliable lap dogs for their preferred attack on Iran? Too bad. Figure it out on your own. You’re big boys now.

    • 11bravo

      ” “…shocked, depressed and shaken to its roots” describes a post-Iraq War Americans as much as Yom Kippur War Israelis.”
      Nonsense! If Obama is going to ensure defeat (like Iraq and Afghanistan) then why bother? Do you think Assad or the rebels would have felt so frisky if we left 20,000 troops in Iraq with plenty of air and artillery support?
      Or, how about if Obama didn’t pull a faux surge in Afghanistan after a 90 day decision making time-out just to get 2,800 more troops killed and then proceed with the scheduled defeat/retreat?
      If the Israeli’s gave Obama any advance notice of their attack on Iran Obama would leak it – just like he did last time.
      One thing the Russian President and ours agree on is that America is NOT exceptional. All committed socialists think the same.
      Also, who cooked the intelligence baby. When most western nations and our democrats in congress sign-off on an authorization of force? Please list all of the nations who thought-at the time- Iraq had no WMD?
      Too bad Barry didn’t have a Meir, or Ben-Gurion bust to return AYE!!

      • rogerinflorida

        Well said, thank you!

      • EarlyBird

        Your Endless Iraq War was unsustainable, and had been lost well before we had ever heard the name Obama. And sorry, but the world is not flat, and Santa Claus is not real, either.

        But keep reminding us that there remains plenty of hysterical, ridiculous, extremist Americans like you continuing to lobby for American suicide-by-foreign-policy. You are far more dangerous than any foreign enemy.

        • 11bravo

          We lost the war the day Barry -O – Biden did not get a status of forces agreement, and the last soldier left.
          You addressed nothing in my comment, so I will let your whining go.

          • moovova

            Obama announced a U.S.surrender in Syria before even launching a strike. Putin, as proxy for Syria, accepted O’s surrender.

    • Imam Khalid of Basra

      Mashallah it is proud defenders of the ISlam like youwho mae the world a better place for Muslims. بارك الله فيك

      • defcon 4

        A “better place for muslims” means a worse place for everyone not a muslim.

      • Drakken

        Dog gonnit, now where did I put that MOAB when I really need it.

    • Drakken

      Israel is always on a war footing you dolt because they are surrounded by hostile arab muslim tribes. You would be too if savages were always attacking you.

  • 1Indioviejo1

    It is astonishing that two wily veterans such as Dagan and Diskin could be so wrong about the West’s support for Israel and Obama’s intentions for Israel. But when you see so many Israelis buy into the land for peace swaps which never worked out, and so many Israelis dither and ignore the true nature of Islam and Muslims, we have to wonder what will become of us in America if the people who have suffered the most at the hands of the Islamo-fascist for 1,400 years can’t get their act together. Israel must survives even if the world blows up for it. Please Israel, destroy Iran and let the world deal with the blowback.

  • defcon 4

    I still remember Kissinger’s comment in the Yom Kippur War that Israel should bleed a little more before receiving any further US assistance, even though Nixon wanted to go ahead and rearm and re-equip Israel. Sickening.

  • TheOrdinaryMan

    So why doesn’t Israel ATTACK Iran? W-H-A-T are they waiting for? This is a good time to strike–the world’s attention is distracted by Syria.

  • defcon 4

    It’s always funneh how you’re so fixated on Hezbollah being the enemy Israel should attack, rather than Hamas. I’m guessing you like your eggs Sunni-side up?

  • Danny

    Bibi! I’m impressed! You’ve finally begun to understand what Jews all over the world and in Israel have been saying all along: That Israel ultimately has to rely upon itself and only itself for its preservation. And all it took was a simple bashing over the head! The following is a quotation from a real Jewish leader:

    “For so long as the Jew has even one ally, he will be convinced – in his smallness of mind – that his salvation came from that ally. It is only when he is alone – against all of his own efforts and frantic attempts – that he will, through no choice, be compelled to turn to G-d.”

    –Rabbi Meir Kahane